cursor_locate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It explains the iterative feedback loop and why it is used, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the actual screen cursor is moved), failure behaviors, or what happens if `max_steps` is exceeded. This is moderate but incomplete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core mechanism, the second justifies its advantage. No wasted words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and method.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderately complex tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description explains the distinct interactive approach. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but the schema's `coords` parameter indirectly covers this. Overall, it is nearly complete for a specialized locator.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 86% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relative-offset mechanism, which helps interpret `max_steps` and `step_ratio`. It does not detail individual parameters, but the core behavior clarifies their purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: moving the cursor with a visual feedback loop to iteratively locate a target by estimating relative offsets (dx/dy). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `locate_object` or `som_locate` by emphasizing the interactive refinement mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear rationale for when this tool is preferred: when relative offset estimation is more accurate than absolute coordinates, citing the GUI-Cursor interactive search paradigm. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.